Dawkins to arrest Pope

Originally posted by Conrau K
What a laugh. So far, whenever you have entered any discussion about Catholic beliefs, you have shown total ignorance. This latest discussion about papal infallibility (which, mind you, sounds very much like the ones we have had before) just confirms this. I am not sure anymore whether you are deliberately obtuse or simply lack basic cognitive abilities. Don't condescend to me; examine your own freaky cult and the damage it has done.

Yes I agree there is alot about the Catholic beliefs I don't and have no desire to understand. The Bible is clear on it's truths and morals and it is evident that the Catholics don't follow them.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
That is why most people pick and choose where they think things are literal or figurative.

I was at a family member's bar mitzvah and in his torah portion there was a rule: if you and another man get into a fight and your wife intervenes and in the process touches the other man's genitals then you have the right to cut off her hand (or arm?).

I am wi most pick and choose what is literal or not since otherwise we would be in a lot of trouble.[/b]

But there was a time when such things occured. I don't view it to be poetry nor fiction. The real question becomes does this law apply to us today, not if it is literally true.

Originally posted by vistesd
A great deal of the Tanach (the Hebrew scriptures), including much of the prophets, is clearly poetic speech. Much else seems to be cast in a kind of poetic prose. There are other literary genres as well (which do not necessarily exclude poetic content): e.g., Job seems to be cast in a dramatic form (perhaps intended to be presented orally, with the c ...[text shortened]... (whether specifically mythological in nature or not, whether based on any historical facts or not).

My pastor had something to say about this particular question. He asked a man if he thought that the Bible should be taken literally. The man replied that he did not. The man thought that he perceived a different message than the literal intepretation. My pastor then said to them man to give him is wallet and all the money that was in it. The man replied that he had no idea what he was talking about. My paster then said, "Well, that is my interpretation of what you were just saying." 😛

The Bible has been proven time and again to be a reliable historical text via Biblical archealogy, yet, when things are written about spiritual matters or supernatural matters there are those who scoff at such notions. Of course, if you are not a believer, what choice do you have?

Originally posted by whodey
But there was a time when such things occured. I don't view it to be poetry nor fiction. The real question becomes does this law apply to us today, not if it is literally true.

Well, yes. There were times where horrible and terrible things did happen and some of them are described in the bible as things you should do.

I think both questions are real though.

Originally posted by Starrman
You're missing the point. Put Dawkins aside for a moment and replace him with someone else. Should the pope stand trial and under what circumstances?

How can they be missing the point when they are clearly commenting on the point you were clearly making, i.e., that the "lulz" would emanate from the scenario offered by this particular atheist (Dawkins) cast as the moral superior to the pope. This was exactly your point; this and nothing less.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Well, yes. There were times where horrible and terrible things did happen and some of them are described in the bible as things you should do.

I think both questions are real though.

So you conceed that it should be taken literally, at least back in Mosaic times?

Originally posted by galveston75
Yes I agree there is alot about the Catholic beliefs I don't and have no desire to understand. The Bible is clear on it's truths and morals and it is evident that the Catholics don't follow them.

Yes I agree there is alot about the Catholic beliefs I don't and have no desire to understand.

Fine. I think you should refrain from making any comments about Catholicism then. If, for example, you have no desire to even understand what papal infallibility means, then any criticism you have will be uninformed and therefore a waste of time.

Originally posted by galveston75
Yes I agree there is alot about the Catholic beliefs I don't and have no desire to understand. The Bible is clear on it's truths and morals and it is evident that the Catholics don't follow them.

freaky cult? number of accusations brought against the catholic church since 1950s for the sexual abuse of its members in the united states,

The Report determined (John Jay) that, during the period from 1950 to 2002, a total of 10,667 individuals had made allegations of child sexual abuse. Of these, the dioceses had been able to substantiate 6,700 accusations against 4,392 priests in the USA, about 4% of all 109,694

source: wikipedia

Jehovahs Witnesses in the USA

"In the United States, over 80,000 elders currently serve in over 12,300 congregations … During the last 100 years, only eleven elders have been sued for child abuse in thirteen lawsuits filed in the United States; In seven of these lawsuits against the elders, accusations against the Watchtower Society itself were dismissed by the courts."

source: wikipedia

Freaky little cult? what's more freaky than huge numbers of child sex abusers masquerading as representatives of Christ.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]My criticism is directed at the curent Pope because he is the head of the organisation, the buck stops with him, simple as that.

That is not how the Catholic Church understands it. The Pope is not the CEO of some conglomerate corporation. Each church comes under the authority of its ordinary, either a bishop or archbishop. The buck stops there.
...[text shortened]... e authorities. [/b]

No action can be brought unless victims themselves go to the authorities.[/b]

Each church comes under the authority of its ordinary, either a bishop or archbishop.

Does the Pope have the authority to remove cardinals/bishops/archbishops from their post? If the answer is yes then you have no argument.

No action can be brought unless victims themselves go to the authorities.

As i understand it people are bringing law suits. But it's a little hard when countless people have been paid into silence and made to sign oaths of secrecy.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lets take the case of Cardinal Sean Brady, when he was Father Sean Brady participated in an internal Church legal process in 1975 that required victims of Father Brendan Smyth to remain silent about their abuse. He later made this comment about another bishop who was involved in a diocesan scandal -

“If I found myself in a situation where I was aware that my failure to act had allowed or meant that other children were abused, well then, I think I would resign.”

He hasn't resigned and the Pope hasn't removed him. Do you think that's acceptable? What do you think should be done?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
freaky cult? number of accusations brought against the catholic church since 1950s for the sexual abuse of its members in the united states,

The Report determined (John Jay) that, during the period from 1950 to 2002, a total of 10,667 individuals had made allegations of child sexual abuse. Of these, the dioceses had been able to substantiate 6,70 ...[text shortened]... more freaky than huge numbers of child sex abusers masquerading as representatives of Christ.

Funny. I never mentioned child sex abuse. Anyway, it is noteworthy that the wikipedia article says that most complaints of sex abuse are settled outside of court.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]Each church comes under the authority of its ordinary, either a bishop or archbishop.

Does the Pope have the authority to remove cardinals/bishops/archbishops from their post? If the answer is yes then you have no argument.

No action can be brought unless victims themselves go to the authorities.

As i understand it people are bring e Pope hasn't removed him. Do you think that's acceptable? What do you think should be done?[/b]

Does the Pope have the authority to remove cardinals/bishops/archbishops from their post? If the answer is yes then you have no argument.

No. Simply because he can remove bishops from their posts does not mean he is responsible for all their actions. The ordinary, or religious superior, is responsible for the formation of priests. He appoints them to ministry and he alone is responsible for policy in regard to local authorities. Again, the Pope is not the CEO.

He hasn't resigned and the Pope hasn't removed him. Do you think that's acceptable? What do you think should be done?

I am not familiar with the case. However, I do not think the Pope really ought to remove him. I do not see the Pope as the CEO or the disciplinarian of the Church. He is the bishop of Rome. The buck stops at the local ordinary.

I think, however, it would be wise to wait until the Irish Visitation is completed. The Pope announced that a visitation would be conducted, investigating cases of abuse and formation houses. This article suggests that the Pope may seek Brady's resignation after the visitation (although I doubt Pell would be appointed to head the visitation.)

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/pope-may-seek-cardinal-sean-bradys-resignation-14739955.html

Originally posted by Conrau K
Funny. I never mentioned child sex abuse. Anyway, it is noteworthy that the wikipedia article says that most complaints of sex abuse are settled outside of court.

whats funny about 11,000 thousand accusations of sexual abuse made against 4,000 priests of the Catholic church over a period of fifty two years of which 6,000 were substantiated? My goodness i wouldn't enter a chapel unless i had a chastity belt on with titanium locks and a kevlar suit that emitted a strong electrical current when any priest came too close.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
whats funny about 11,000 thousand accusations of sexual abuse made against 4,000 priests of the Catholic church over a period of fifty two years of which 6,000 were substantiated?

I did not say that there was anything funny about that. Although I think the JWs have a few skeletons in the closet. Actually, what I think makes your religion a freaky cult is its prohibition against blood transfusions. That is easily the most dangerous and most insane teaching.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I did not say that there was anything funny about that. Although I think the JWs have a few skeletons in the closet. Actually, what I think makes your religion a freaky cult is its prohibition against blood transfusions. That is easily the most dangerous and most insane teaching.

we claim the right of self determination, what is freaky about that? which never the less is an entirely different issue to the one at hand. You cannot of course be anything less than astounded at the contrast between the figures quoted for sexual abuse. I am sorry Conrau, something is fundamentally wrong with Catholicism when horrendous figures like that are examined and digested, it is indefensible, nor is your attempt to focus attention elsewhere going to work. I have no problem discussing our stance on blood and the alternatives that are available, indeed, you may find it quite educational.